Yuri Danoyan

Are you familiar with Ludwig Wittgenstein philosophy? http://www.island-of-freedom.com/WITTGEN.HTM

Please try to use standard mathematical language. Because metasymmetry idea - not standard idea impossible to submit its standard mathematical language. " Every time is needed to seek a new path" Richard Feynman "Character of Physical Law", "Seeking New Laws" "The idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another". Richard Feynman

Burton Richter,Nobel Laureat in Physics 1976 "Theory in particle physics: Theological speculation versus practical knowledge",Physics Today 2006, October,p.8 "The general trend of the path to understanding has been reductionist. We explain our world in terms of a generally decreasing number of assumptions, equations, and constants, although sometimes things have gotten more complicated before they became simpler. Aristotle would have recognized only what he called the property of heaviness and we call gravity. As more was learned, new forces had to be absorbed—first magnetic, then electric. Then we realized that the magnetic and electric forces were really the electromagnetic force. The discovery of radioactivity and the nucleus required the addition of the weak and strong interactions. Grand unified theories have pulled the number back down again. Still, the general direction is always toward the reductionist—understanding complexity in terms of an underlying simplicity." http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_59/iss_10/8_1.shtml

Interesting to know would be approved Wilczek solution to the problem through metasymmetry?It is very simple and physically motivated primitive. Wilczek unfortunately has not responded to my letters.

In discussion between L. B. Okun, G. Veneziano and M. J. Duff, concerning the number of fundamental dimensionful constants in physics (physics/0110060). They advocated correspondingly 3, 2 and 0 fundamental constants. Why they not considering case,where only 1 constant Planck-Dirac's constant; h/2pi=1,054x10^-27ergxsec? This will be convincingly, because c- not contain mass dimension for triumvir and G overloading.and breaks 1/3 metasymmetry principle. Pay attention to dimension L=01 T=11 (L- discrete,T- continue) c ; L T^-1 G ; L^3 M^-1 T^-2 ; (1/3)^-2*M^-1 h ; L^2 M T^-1 ; 1/3*M My be h only dimensionful constant of Nature? Some hint give Planck mass Mp=(hc/G)^1/2 .We simultaneously can decrease or increase c and G, but Mp remains unchanged. As a consequence only Mp/Me=1836 true dimensionless constant?

According general opinion general relativity - unfinished theory.

Mass is the quantitative or numerical measure of body’s inertia. "Posing the issue, Einstein vs Mach, as question of symmetry brings it within a circle ideas that are central to modern fundamental physics. In the standard electroweak model, we have a Higgs field that breaks local gauge symmetries of the primary equations; in quantum chromodynamics, we have a quark-antiquark condensate that breaks both those symmetries and others; and in unification schemes, generalizations of the symmetry breaking idea are used freely." Frank Wilczek.Total relativity:Mach 2004,Physics Today,April 2004. Metasymmetry idea just total generalization symmetry breaking and have his Ratio 3:1 or 1:3.See thread http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34145

According Higgs mechaism origin of mass is result of breaking of symmetry. According principle of Mach origin of mass is result of influence all the rest of Universe. Contradict each other Higgs mechanism and Mach principle? For example, mass of proton 938,27 Mev.Why? Who can give more convincing answer?

What is charm of periodic function y = tan (x)? y=tan (x)=sin (x)/cos (x); function y=sin(x) is an odd function; function y=cos(x) is an even function. How about y=tan(x)? Odd or even? Of course odd function,but high rate odd function and here by analogy of metasymmetry we can say it is metasymmetric function. For charged leptons phenomenon 18 deg: mu 105.65 ; 6.424 = (45-38.576)deg = (45-2x19)deg tau 1777 ; 62.165 = (45+17.165)deg = (45+17)deg

The equations that describe the behavior of elementary particles become fundamentally simpler and more symmetric when the mass of the particles is zero. So eliminating mass enables us to bring more symmetry into the mathematical description of Nature.(Frank Wilczek)

Do you fullfill the requirement that the higgs is spin 2? You are talking about graviton.It is different matter. Spin of Higgs O

Why pseuodoscalar mesons can't play the role of Higgs particles? They just corresponding to rule 2 +2 = 3 +1.That mean by language of metasymmetry 3:1. I affirm that true Higgs particles are well-known pseudoscalar mesons.

Confirmation of electroweak symmetry breaking mechanism already exist. That is Metasymmetry.Ratio 3:1 In the Standard Theory of electroweak interaction bosons (W+, W-, Z) have a mass but a photon does not. Again we have the 3:1 ratio About prediction Mass of Higgs see my thread http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34397

As we see in thread http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34831 Higgs effect have simple interpretation: 2+2=3+1 Despite this, predictions mass of Higgs have different values: 1) M > 200 Gev; 2)135 < M < 200 ГэВ; 3) M < 135Gev; Also predictions are different about number of Higgs particles from 1 to 5 and more. What is cause ? There are different models of electroweak symmetry breaking.Not clear how mechanism of breaking working.Experiments that explore the energy regime around 1 TeV will put the electroweak theory to test.But can the analisis of triviality 2+2=3+1 to clarify how mechanism breaking of symmetry working?

In my last thread http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34145 i was talking about mass, as a stumbling block for description in binary way. Origin of mass is most important problem in modern physics.Discovery of Higgs my be solving this question. Simple interpretation of Higgs mechanism is 2+2=3+1.(L.B. Okun, Leptons and Quarks, NorthHolland, Amsterdam, 1982,. Section 20.4) This interpretation very close to metasymmetry idea.But metasymmetry more comprehensive, because illustrates: 1) 3 of 4 fundamental interactions (strong, electromagnetic, weak) are relatively closed by their intensity magnitude but are greatly different from gravitational Again the 3:1 ratio 2) In the Standard Theory of weak electric interaction bosons (W+, W-, Z) have a mass but a photon does not. Again we have the 3:1 ratio. 3). Mmin u-quark/Mel+ 1.5Mev/0.51 Mev = 3:1 ratio Question: "Why mass of proton equal 938,28 Mev?" my be meaningless,but if ask "Why Mp/Me=1836 ?" already has meaning. There the nature used minimax principle. Dividing this record half-and-half and every half sum up get 99; 9+9=18 1+8=9;9 is maximal one - digit number in decimal. 9 to binary 1001.Beautiful mirror symmetry. Real confirmation Dirac's aphorisms: "God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world" or "A physical law must possess mathematical beauty." Pay attention to dimensions Planck units : c ; L T ^-1 G ; L^3 M^-1 T^ -2 h ; L^2 M T^ -1 Last two Planck units contain mass.If show L as 01 and T as11, for G we get 1/9, for h we get 1/3, that mean h more fit to metasymmetry. My be h #1 constant of nature? Some hint give Planck mass Mp=(hc/G)^1/2 .We simultaneously can decrease or increase c and G, but Mp remains unchanged. Russian mathematican Yuri Manin in his book "Mathematics as Metaphor"( http://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-Metaphor-Collected-Works/dp/0821843311/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219573904&sr=1-1) used expression "the rudiments of the classical terminology ".My be "mass" and "force" , as notion, also are rudiments? In the same book Manin wrote : My be spin is truly fundamental value and other only remnants of classical physics?

On the thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34700 i guoted my letter to Nobel Laureat Stewen Weinberg with question "If space is discrete and time is continue,4-dimensional space-time lost its sense?" and his short answer "Yes". When i read other Nobel Laureat Gerardus t' Hooft Lecture( see my thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34730) and his doubt about power of Calculus on small distances i have question "If space is discrete and time is continue....how about ds/dt ? Also become meaningless?" I used binary code for signify discrete and continue, see my thread:http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34145. I present ds/dt as 10/11 or 01/11 and i got 2/3 or1/3 look like charges of quarks. That made me more inquisitive. The same time I remembered about Richard Feynman suspicion: "I rather suspect that the simple ideas of geometry, extended down into infinitely small space, are wrong" R.P. Feynman, The Character of Physical Law (The M.I.T. Press, 1990), p. 166. So, by hints 3 Nobel Laureats i start thinking about use binary number for future exploring. I am also supported by John Wheeler's idea "It from Bit". Then i thought about mass.By binary i can signify space and time. How i can signify mass by binary?(Be continued) P.S.Space is discrete.Time is continue. To face the fact D=3;1,2,3 Time D=1 only.

Pay attention to coindicence: tangent pi/10 = 1/3; metasymmetry ratio 3:1 or 1:3

"Physicist. Philosopher. Poet. Visionary. Guru. John Archibald Wheeler, who died April 13 at age 96, wore all of these hats in his efforts to penetrate the nature of ultimate reality."(New Scientist,April 15,2008) I would like reminding couple quotations from John Wheeler: "Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we grasp it - in a decade, a century, or a millennium - we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise? How could we have been so stupid?" "Some day a door will surely open and expose the glittering central mechanism of the world in its beauty and simplicity." (Gravitation,p.1197) FIrst quotation wide spread on the Internet. Other version is :"Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful so compelling that when-in a decade, a century, a millennium-- we grasp it, we will say to each other, how could it have been otherwise? How can we have been so blind for so long?" Other version" "I don't know whether it will be one year or a decade, but I think we can and will understand. That's the central thing I would like to stand for. We can and will understand." All these quotes i gave for discussing on topic: "Whether true prediction of Great Visionary?" Is it possible to find out simple and non-sophisticated description Laws of Nature?

How your comment related to my thread?

Pauli's idea about "Division and reduction the symmetry" see thread http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/s...ad.php?t=34142 and Wheeler's idea "It from Bit" http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/s...ad.php?t=34160 have common base. Wheeler:"Tryihg to wrap my brain around idea of information theory as the basis of existence,i came ap with the phrase "it from bit".The universe and all that it contains("it") may arise from the myriad yes-no choices of mearusement(the"bits")". "Information may not be just what we learn about the world.It may be what makes the world". Quote as favourite saying "Less is more" Wheeler continued:"it is good principle of physics research.In thinking about the world in the large.As Philip Anderson told"More is different".When you put enough elementary units together,you can get something that is more than the sum of these units."More is different" may have something to do with "it from bit" What mean Pauli?Pauli first of all thinking about division,about binary splitting of symmetry until end,for understanding nature of embryonic symmetry.But embryonic symmetry lead as the same binary relations "yes or no","0 or 1".That's i would like to say about common between Pauli an Wheeler ideas

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34731

see please my thread http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34700

Thank you for useful discussion...

I published it in russian...

Have you read my thread ? http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34145